Ron Paul

[Annie]

Giuliani did some campaigning in Iowa, but not much in the last couple of months, though.

but the way to read the candidates' strategy on the maps is not just by looking at how many stops they had in a given place, although that's part of it... but to look at where their emphasis is. For example, by clicking on Obama, you can see that he put almost all of his emphasis in Iowa to start so he can get some momentum. Same with Edwards. Giuliani has a lot more on the coasts. Paul focused most of his efforts in iowa, making 12 appearances in Des Moines alone.

If you look at the grand scheme of things on the maps, you get the overall strategy, not just by looking at it simplistically and saying "ooooh., giulian campained in Iowa... if you look, almost not at all the past couple of months before the caucuses.

That's where my argument would have been. *hands on hip*

 

[jillian]

That's where my argument would have been. *hands on hip*

heh...

*cyber high five*

 

[Paulie]

Giuliani did some campaigning in Iowa, but not much in the last couple of months, though.

but the way to read the candidates' strategy on the maps is not just by looking at how many stops they had in a given place, although that's part of it... but to look at where their emphasis is. For example, by clicking on Obama, you can see that he put almost all of his emphasis in Iowa to start so he can get some momentum. Same with Edwards. Giuliani has a lot more on the coasts. Paul focused most of his efforts in iowa, making 12 appearances in Des Moines alone.

If you look at the grand scheme of things on the maps, you get the overall strategy, not just by looking at it simplistically and saying "ooooh., giulian campained in Iowa... if you look, almost not at all the past couple of months before the caucuses.

Are you making a point? Because I don't see one. First of all, Ron did not focus all his efforts on Iowa. He's been spending the majority of efforts on NH, a key primary state that he has a shot in. He never had a shot to win Iowa, and most realistic RP supporters understood that. How could you beat Huckabee there? That whole state is full of white hardcore christians, the kind of people that only judge politics based on religion. Huckabee was the perfect fit. He won't even finish top 4 in NH. Ron's got a serious shot at taking 2nd, and there's a definite possibility of him winning. He's polling 3rd there currently among "likely republican voters". Imagine all the Independents and party-changers that aren't included in these polls.

Instead of getting drug around by the media after the 5th place in Iowa, they actually reported it to his favor, with Fox News even referring to him as a real candidate. He proved in Iowa that he's not a fringe campaign by beating Giuliani, a household name, and keeping pace with Mccain and Thompson. A good finish in NH will add more voters that previously didn't want to vote for him because they didn't think he could win.

I love that his rise in campaign success has caused you guys to do so much homework on Ron. That's what you SHOULD be doing before you choose a candidate. I only hope you are spending as much time researching YOUR candidate, or potential candidates, as you are with Ron.

 

[Annie]

Are you making a point? Because I don't see one. First of all, Ron did not focus all his efforts on Iowa. He's been spending the majority of efforts on NH, a key primary state that he has a shot in. He never had a shot to win Iowa, and most realistic RP supporters understood that. How could you beat Huckabee there? That whole state is full of white hardcore christians, the kind of people that only judge politics based on religion. Huckabee was the perfect fit. He won't even finish top 4 in NH. Ron's got a serious shot at taking 2nd, and there's a definite possibility of him winning. He's polling 3rd there currently among "likely republican voters". Imagine all the Independents and party-changers that aren't included in these polls.

Instead of getting drug around by the media after the 5th place in Iowa, they actually reported it to his favor, with Fox News even referring to him as a real candidate. He proved in Iowa that he's not a fringe campaign by beating Giuliani, a household name, and keeping pace with Mccain and Thompson. A good finish in NH will add more voters that previously didn't want to vote for him because they didn't think he could win.

I love that his rise in campaign success has caused you guys to do so much homework on Ron. That's what you SHOULD be doing before you choose a candidate. I only hope you are spending as much time researching YOUR candidate, or potential candidates, as you are with Ron.

Chill Pauli, I did my research when his message first resonated with me. That's where I soured. Read through the last page or so, it was your compatriot, Baron that brought this to our attention.

 

[Paulie]

Chill Pauli, I did my research when his message first resonated with me. That's where I soured. Read through the last page or so, it was your compatriot, Baron that brought this to our attention.

Kathianne, judging by your recent posting history, and especially this thread, you research this guy just about everyday. That's awesome, I'm just saying that I hope you've also been researching the candidates that you're considering.

It would seem pretty silly to be less informed about a person you'll actually be giving your vote to than you are about one you won't be.

Be completely honest with me Kathianne...what's your biggest beef with Ron Paul?

 

[Annie]

Kathianne, judging by your recent posting history, and especially this thread, you research this guy just about everyday. That's awesome, I'm just saying that I hope you've also been researching the candidates that you're considering.

It would seem pretty silly to be less informed about a person you'll actually be giving your vote to than you are about one you won't be.

Be completely honest with me Kathianne...what's your biggest beef with Ron Paul?

Seriously, the Hucksters aren't thrilled with me either. I've never been less than honest with you, what I don't like about Paul has been posted about, extensively, as you and Baron have noted.

 

[Paulie]

Seriously, the Hucksters aren't thrilled with me either. I've never been less than honest with you, what I don't like about Paul has been posted about, extensively, as you and Baron have noted.

Well, the stormfront thing you already made your mind up about obviously. I just find it odd, based on the fact that all you have is circumstantial evidence, which ultimately came from the kind of people you seem to despise the most. You are taking the white supremecists' word, which I find hard to comprehend.

I also know that you don't like his policy towards Israel, which I really hope you havent spun in your mind as a racial policy. That same policy goes for EVERYONE. Trade? Sure. Federal Aid? Weapons? No, you've had enough.

Other than that, I'm not really sure what else you have a problem with. You've already admitted you liked a lot of his positions. I'm sure you don't like his overall foreign policy, but I'd challenge you to show me how we can even AFFORD the foreign policies of the other candidates.

So I guess let me ask you what you LIKE about him...

 

[Ninja]

So I guess let me ask you what you LIKE about him...

Can I take this one?

I like his:

• Strict Constructionist view of the Second Amendment
• Opposition to sodomy-based marriage and infanticide.

So Paulitics, do you disagree with Ron at all, platform-wise?

 

[Annie]

Well, the stormfront thing you already made your mind up about obviously. I just find it odd, based on the fact that all you have is circumstantial evidence, which ultimately came from the kind of people you seem to despise the most. You are taking the white supremecists' word, which I find hard to comprehend.

I also know that you don't like his policy towards Israel, which I really hope you havent spun in your mind as a racial policy. That same policy goes for EVERYONE. Trade? Sure. Federal Aid? Weapons? No, you've had enough.

Other than that, I'm not really sure what else you have a problem with. You've already admitted you liked a lot of his positions. I'm sure you don't like his overall foreign policy, but I'd challenge you to show me how we can even AFFORD the foreign policies of the other candidates.

So I guess let me ask you what you LIKE about him...

Here's the problem that I doubt you'll be able to understand. This isn't court. This is whom I CHOOSE to vote for. I don't vote for those I PERCEIVE to be racists/fascists or not have a problem with either-Ron Paul. I don't knowingly vote for the ethically challenged-Huckabee. I really don't want to vote for someone that feels entitled to be president-Romney-no matter how much money they have. I couldn't vote for Hillary for more reasons than Paul, but other than that, I'm pretty well open to candidates.

 

[Annie]

Can I take this one?

I like his:

• Strict Constructionist view of the Second Amendment
• Opposition of sodomy-based marriage and infanticide.

So Paulitics, do you disagree with Ron at all, platform-wise?

I like his Constitutional stand, though find it interesting that he wants an amendment. I think marriage and abortion should be left to the states. I'm with him on turning over power to the states, which should be.

I'm certainly against his thinking that the US can revert to its borders and then 'the world' will like us and trade fairly with us.

 

[Paulie]

Can I take this one?

I like his:

• Strict Constructionist view of the Second Amendment
• Opposition to sodomy-based marriage and infanticide.

So Paulitics, do you disagree with Ron at all, platform-wise?

I have to honestly say that what I know most about him, I agree with. I'm not admittedly as informed on his position on welfare as I'd like to be, and I am for people getting aid that DESERVE IT. I'd say it ought to be left to the individual states, but there are some times when a state just can't handle the job. I'd like to think that eventually, under his administration, the states won't be held hostage to the funding of the Feds. The whole "Support A, and we'll fund you...Support B, and we'll cut you off"-type thing. I'll look more into his position on that, it's just not one of my top 5 concerns right now.

My top 5 I guess would be:

Constitution
Economy
Foreign Policy
Size of government
Domestic policy

All of which, I wholeheartedly agree with him on. Can you say that about your candidate?

I'm certainly against his thinking that the US can revert to its borders and then 'the world' will like us and trade fairly with us.

How can you be so sure that it wouldn't be good, though, to stop our intervention? It is of course the number one reason our enemies give for being our enemies.

If you really feel that our role in the world is the international police department, how do you think we are going to financially support the growing police force?

 

[Annie]

I have to honestly say that what I know most about him, I agree with. I'm not admittedly as informed on his position on welfare as I'd like to be, and I am for people getting aid that DESERVE IT. I'd say it ought to be left to the individual states, but there are some times when a state just can't handle the job. I'd like to think that eventually, under his administration, the states won't be held hostage to the funding of the Feds. The whole "Support A, and we'll fund you...Support B, and we'll cut you off"-type thing. I'll look more into his position on that, it's just not one of my top 5 concerns right now.

My top 5 I guess would be:

Constitution
Economy
Foreign Policy
Size of government
Domestic policy

All of which, I wholeheartedly agree with him on. Can you say that about your candidate?



How can you be so sure that it wouldn't be good, though, to stop our intervention? It is of course the number one reason our enemies give for being our enemies.

If you really feel that our role in the world is the international police department, how do you think we are going to financially support the growing police force?

Nope, not international police. International take care of our interests and allies. I think we should be more judicial in choosing our allies and cutting those that shouldn't be.

Reason I don't think reverting to 19th C is a good idea, airplanes.

 

[Paulie]

Nope, not international police. International take care of our interests and allies.

Same difference. No matter what, we can't afford it. We need to be taking care of our OWN country right now. We're a friggin mess, and we're out trying to clean up everyone ELSE'S mess.

Reason I don't think reverting to 19th C is a good idea, airplanes.

Airplanes? Are you serious? That's it? What, are you afraid that someone's gonna load up the tarmac and launch a full scale air invasion against us because we don't have our military spread out around the world? I don't really understand the logic behind that.

If they want to attack us, they'll attack us. Maybe we ought to stop pissing them off so much, and they won't WANT to attack us. We are highly capable of defending ourselves against any countries air assaults anyway, whether we're located throughout the world or not. So is China, and you don't see them on a worldwide military escapade, do you?

The bottom line is no matter how much you'd LIKE us to keep order around the world, we just can't financially sustain such an effort.

Do you want PERCEIVED security via military force, or do you want economic prosperity? Because you can't have both. Not forever, anyway. Name one empire that's ever succeeded with such a policy.

 

[Annie]

Same difference. No matter what, we can't afford it. We need to be taking care of our OWN country right now. We're a friggin mess, and we're out trying to clean up everyone ELSE'S mess.



Airplanes? Are you serious? That's it? What, are you afraid that someone's gonna load up the tarmac and launch a full scale air invasion against us because we don't have our military spread out around the world? I don't really understand the logic behind that.

If they want to attack us, they'll attack us. Maybe we ought to stop pissing them off so much, and they won't WANT to attack us. We are highly capable of defending ourselves against any countries air assaults anyway, whether we're located throughout the world or not. So is China, and you don't see them on a worldwide military escapade, do you?

The bottom line is no matter how much you'd LIKE us to keep order around the world, we just can't financially sustain such an effort.

Do you want PERCEIVED security via military force, or do you want economic prosperity? Because you can't have both. Not forever, anyway. Name one empire that's ever succeeded with such a policy.

Seriously dude, if you are unable to extrapolate from that, you are weirder than the doctor you're pushing. Have fun with that.

 

[jillian]

Are you making a point? Because I don't see one. First of all, Ron did not focus all his efforts on Iowa. He's been spending the majority of efforts on NH, a key primary state that he has a shot in. He never had a shot to win Iowa, and most realistic RP supporters understood that. How could you beat Huckabee there? That whole state is full of white hardcore christians, the kind of people that only judge politics based on religion. Huckabee was the perfect fit. He won't even finish top 4 in NH. Ron's got a serious shot at taking 2nd, and there's a definite possibility of him winning. He's polling 3rd there currently among "likely republican voters". Imagine all the Independents and party-changers that aren't included in these polls.

Instead of getting drug around by the media after the 5th place in Iowa, they actually reported it to his favor, with Fox News even referring to him as a real candidate. He proved in Iowa that he's not a fringe campaign by beating Giuliani, a household name, and keeping pace with Mccain and Thompson. A good finish in NH will add more voters that previously didn't want to vote for him because they didn't think he could win.

I love that his rise in campaign success has caused you guys to do so much homework on Ron. That's what you SHOULD be doing before you choose a candidate. I only hope you are spending as much time researching YOUR candidate, or potential candidates, as you are with Ron.

I'm sorry you didn't *get* my point. I thought it was pretty clear. I was merely responding to Baron's link. I found he didn't quite represent it properly, so in the interest of truth, justice and the American way, figured I'd clarify for him.

The success you guys keep talking about hasn't caused me any "homework" or consternation. His white supremacist supporters trouble me far more than he does. He's going to be another Perot... another wack-a-doodle who will be nothing more than a footnote. I can't wait for him to run as an indie cause he puts any thought at all to a republican presidency in 2008 to rest.

I also find the misplaced level of importance you give this hypocritical little guy kind of funny. Your thinking that he has equal and opposite importance to the rest of us is self-delusion. But then again, so is thinking Ron Paul has any chance of being president.

So cheers to you.

 

[Annie]

In the latest Real Clear Politics Poll, RP doesn't get mentioned. Not that my guy is doing well:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html

 

[eots]

In the latest Real Clear Politics Poll, RP doesn't get mentioned. Not that my guy is doing well:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html

you tried that one already. he is intentionally left out of the poll just like the fox debate so... its pretty hard to appear in a poll your not included in

 

[jillian]

you tried that one already. he is intentionally left out of the poll just like the fox debate so... its pretty hard to appear in a poll your not included in

Er... no. He appeared in these polls and he's pretty negligable....

http://pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

 

[eots]

In the latest Real Clear Politics Poll, RP doesn't get mentioned. Not that my guy is doing well:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html

so your statement he did not even get mentioned was a false one. it looks to me that he is in the top five candidate across the board and his growth in support clearly growing rapidly



%
John McCain 22
Rudy Giuliani 20
Mike Huckabee 17
Mitt Romney 12
Fred Thompson 9
Ron Paul 4
Duncan Hunter 1
Other (vol.)
1
None (vol.)
2
Unsure
12



11/8-11/07 9/13-16/07
% %
Rudy Giuliani 29
27

John McCain 12
15

Mitt Romney 12
8

Fred Thompson 12
18

Mike Huckabee 8
4

Ron Paul 6
3

Tom Tancredo 3
-

Duncan Hunter 1
-

Other (vol.) 2
2

Unsure 16
17

Newt Gingrich n/a
5

Sam Brownback n/a

 

[jillian]

Near as I can tell, he was sixth... and in the earlier poll, he was ahead of only Tancredo, who hadn't yet dropped out and Duncan Hunter... another non-entity.